JD & S Project Pty Limited v Katcorp Constructions Pty Limited [2021] NSWDC 772

JD & S Project Pty Limited v Katcorp Constructions Pty Limited [2021] NSWDC 772

Plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case and, in the absence of evidence from the defendant regarding its assets or intentions, established a real risk that defendant's assets will be distributed to its beneficial owners so as to frustrate recovery of judgment. The evidentiary onus shifted to the defendant, which remained silent. Limited freezing order appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction
Outcome
Limited freezing order granted against defendant's assets up to $240,000; costs of the motion are reserved; order to be entered forthwith.
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'evidentiary Onus' 'contract' 'promissory Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit']
['civil Procedure'] ['freezing Orders' 'mareva Injunction' 'asset Preservation' 'evidentiary Onus' 'contract' 'promissory Estoppel' 'quantum Meruit']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Mareva Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff has a good arguable case against the defendant' "Whether there is a real risk that defendant's assets will be dissipated to frustrate judgment" 'Whether evidentiary onus shifts to defendant regarding assets']

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case and, in the absence of evidence from the defendant regarding its assets or intentions, established a real risk that defendant's assets will be distributed to its beneficial owners so as to frustrate recovery of judgment. The evidentiary onus shifted to the defendant, which remained silent. Limited freezing order appropriate.

Court Disposition

Limited freezing order granted against defendant's assets up to $240,000; costs of the motion are reserved; order to be entered forthwith.

Orders

  • ['Order in schedule to notice of motion filed granted (freezing assets up to $240,000)' 'Costs of motion reserved' 'Entry of order directed forthwith']